Emerging research has examined individual differences in affective forecasting; however, we are aware of no published study to date linking psychopathology symptoms to affective forecasting problem...

Affective forecasting often drives decision-making. Although affective forecasting research has often focused on identifying sources of error at the event level, the present investigation draws upon the “realistic paradigm” in seeking to identify factors that similarly influence predicted and actual emotions, explaining their concordance across individuals. We hypothesised that the personality traits neuroticism and extraversion would account for variation in both predicted and actual emotional reactions to a wide array of stimuli and events (football games, an election, Valentine's Day, birthdays, (...) happy/sad film clips, and an intrusive interview). As hypothesised, individuals who were more introverted and neurotic anticipated, correctly, that they would experience relatively more unpleasant emotional reactions, and those who were more extraverted and less neurotic anticipated, correctly, that they would experience relatively more pleasant emotional reactions. Personality explained 30% of the concordance between predicted and actual emotional reactions. Findings suggest three purported personality processes implicated in affective forecasting, highlight the importance of individual-differences research in this domain, and call for more research on realistic affective forecasts. (shrink)

A key challenge in conducting paid internet-based studies is that individuals may feign eligibility to participate. This case series describes three examples where people attempted to fake being locals with health vulnerabilities to participate in paid internet-mediated studies. In two cases, individuals pretended to have serious cancer diagnoses to participate in a randomized controlled trial. In the third case, an individual pretended to be nine restaurant workers at high risk of occupational COVID-19 exposure to participate in an online survey. Key (...) red flags among individuals feigning eligibility are noted. Ethical and practical methodologic implications are discussed. (shrink)